published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User

In a field study, we examined choice blindness for eyewitnesses' facial recognition decisions. Seventy-one pedestrians were engaged in a conversation by two experimenters who pretended to be tourists in the center of a European city. After a short interval, pedestrians were asked to identify the two experimenters from separate simultaneous six-person photo lineups. Following each of the two forced-choice recognition decisions, they were confronted with their selection and asked to motivate their decision. However, for one of the recognition decisions, the chosen lineup member was exchanged with a previously unidentified member. Blindness for this identity manipulation occurred at the rate of 40.8%. Furthermore, the detection rate varied as a function of similarity (high vs. low) between the original choice and the manipulated outcome. Finally, choice manipulations undermined the confidence-accuracy relation for detectors to a greater degree than for blind participants. Stimulus ambiguity is discussed as a moderator of choice blindness.

While recent research has shown that the accuracy of positive identification decisions can be assessed via confidence and decision times, gauging lineup rejections has been less successful. The current study focused on 2 different aspects which are inherent in lineup rejections. First, we hypothesized that decision times and confidence ratings should be postdictive of identification rejections if they refer to a single lineup member only. Second, we hypothesized that dividing nonchoosers according to the reasons they provided for their decisions can serve as a useful postdictor for nonchoosers' accuracy. To test these assumptions, we used (1) 1-person lineups (showups) in order to obtain confidence and response time measures referring to a single lineup member, and (2) asked nonchoosers about their reasons for making a rejection. Three hundred and eighty-four participants were asked to identify 2 different persons after watching 1 of 2 stimulus films. The results supported our hypotheses. Nonchoosers' postdecision confidence ratings were well-calibrated. Likewise, we successfully established optimum time and confidence boundaries for nonchoosers. Finally, combinations of postdictors increased the number of accurate classifications compared with individual postdictors.

Purpose.To examine whether choice blindness occurs for auditory stimuli, namely voices. Methods.One hundred participants listened to three pairs of voices and had to decide each time which one they found more sympathetic or sounded more criminal. After they made a choice, participants were presented with the chosen voice again and had to match it to a face. However, during the second trial, participants were actually presented with the voice they had previously not chosen.Results. Only 19% of the participants detected this change concurrently, an additional 10% detected it retrospectively. This indicates that choice blindness transfers to auditory stimuli. Whether participants had previously evaluated sympathy or criminality of the voices had no effect on choice blindness. Conclusions.The study shows that choice blindness is a robust phenomenon that can also be elicited when auditory stimuli are employed. Implications for earwitness testimony and expert witnesses in the context of forensic speech analysis are discussed.While most of us would probably agree that we are free to make choices every day and that we are aware of the choices we make, a series of experiments recently challenged this assumption. That is, Johansson, Hall, Sikström, and Olsson (2005) instructed 120 participants to decide which of two female faces they found more attractive. After they made a decision, participants were handed the chosen face and were asked to motivate their decision. In 3 of the 15 trials, however, the participants' choice was manipulated. Here, a magical card trick was used in which participants ended up with the very face they had not chosen. Interestingly, only 13% of the manipulated trials were detected at the time of the manipulation. The authors dubbed this phenomenon choice blindness.Also, another significant result from this study was that some participants included facial features in their choice motivation that the (manipulated) face in front of them did not carry (e.g., 'she had a nice smile' while the person on the photo was not smiling).

The authors acknowledge the strong support and valuable assistance of Rense Hoekstra in finding a study format that meets the research needs as well as the criteria of the standing ethical committee of our faculty. Finally, the authors would like to thank Sandra Saebjörnsdóttir, Robin Sevenich, and Stijn Valkenburg for their help in data collection. AbstractThe present study examined blindness for identification decisions from targetpresent and target-absent lineups using a field study methodology. Eighty pedestrians were Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 03:09 26 August 2015A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t Choice reversals on blindness for identification decisions 2 exposed to a staged theft. Subsequently, they were asked to identify the thief and the victim from separate, simultaneous six-person lineups. Their identification decision concerning the thief lineup was manipulated such that participants' selections were exchanged with a previously unidentified lineup member (choice exchange) and lineup rejections were turned into identifications (choice reversal). Participants were seven to ten times less likely to detect choice exchanges (66.7%) compared with choice reversals (11.2%). Furthermore, identification accuracy was not a prerequisite for detection. Thus, rejections and particularly selections made from both target-present and target-absent lineups are susceptible to choice blindness. Finally, our study implies that for blindness in eyewitness identification decisions between-category changes (i.e., choice reversals) are easier to detect than within-category changes (i.e., choice exchanges).